SoVote

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Dec/7/23 12:49:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say to my colleague that we need to stop the disinformation. I also want to make a couple of very important reminders. First, the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Second, households outside Quebec that pay this carbon tax receive financial compensation that is in no way related to their profession or marital status. It is based on their income. Third, the Conservatives' proposal excludes many households for no good reason. How do they define family? What about single people or the elderly?

90 words

Mr. Corey Tochor

Dec/7/23 12:50:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is all about fairness. Quebec does not directly pay the cost of carbon tax 1, but it pays carbon tax 2. I will give an example from my province. We are going to grow some mustard. For that mustard, all the inputs that go into putting seed in the ground, harvesting and shipping that grain to a processing plant is all taxed with the carbon tax. Then it gets to the plant and it is processed into mustard. Before we put that mustard on a hotdog, we pay a carbon tax for the production of the seed, the production of the mustard and the transportation into Quebec. Yes, people are going to be paying more carbon tax if they elect the Liberals.

125 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Dec/7/23 12:51:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is another day that we have the privilege of rising in the House to speak for our constituents back home. I see some of my hon. colleagues who I was with for several hours last night at committee. It was great to finish clause-by-clause of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, which will assist citizens across our country. I am happy to participate—

70 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/7/23 12:52:01 p.m.
Watch

Order, please. There are conversations going on and I would ask members to take them to the lobby so we can continue with the debate on the floor. The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

35 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Dec/7/23 12:52:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I sat and chatted with the member for Saskatoon—University for a good chunk of time last night during our session at the natural resources committee. I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that, since 2015, our government has spared no effort to make life more affordable for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. We have lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty and, thanks to the guaranteed income supplement and the enhanced Canada pension plan, we are offering unprecedented support to our seniors. Indeed, 2.3 million fewer Canadians are living in poverty than before 2015. Whether we are talking about $10-a-day child care or the new Canada dental care plan, our government has made historic improvements to the country's social safety net. The reality is that our economic plan is fiscally responsible and it is delivering results for Canadians. We have strengthened Canada's social safety net while ensuring that the country maintains the lowest deficit- and debt-to-GDP ratios in the G7. I must say that our government has implemented several measures in the past year to support Canadians. For example, last summer, roughly 11 million low-income people and families received the grocery rebate. We are helping Canadians from coast to coast to coast deal with global inflation. We have their backs, and will continue to have their backs, as we go forward and as the economy turns and inflation continues to decline. That was a one-time payment that helped them deal with the rising cost of living and put food on the table. I am splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with my friend and colleague, the parliamentary secretary from the wonderful riding of St. Catharines. What we are talking about here is up to $467 more for eligible couples with two children, and up to $234 more for singles with no children, including single seniors. I have talked about the measure with constituents in my riding, and I can confirm that it has been very popular. To help Canadians with the cost of living, the government also issues Canada workers benefit payments automatically now. This is the Canada workers benefit, which is transformational. This benefit has already helped lift thousands of Canadians out of poverty. We believe that these improvements will give low-income workers timely access to the funds they need to support themselves and their families. Since last July, eligible single workers have received up to $714, and families have received up to $1,231, spread over three advance payments. These are three payments during the year and then people files their taxes. The Canada workers benefit is a great way to lift low-income workers, hard-working Canadians, out of poverty and give them extra money during the year and at the end of the year to pay for necessities. As we also announced in the 2023 fall economic statement, we are going to amend the Competition Act to further modernize merger reviews, including by empowering the Competition Bureau to better detect and address “killer acquisitions” and other anti-competitive mergers. Our government is well aware of the fact that better competition means lower prices, more choices and more innovative products and services for Canadians. Our goal is very clear. We want to make groceries more affordable for Canadians. However, our government understands that many Canadians are still struggling to pay their bills right now and are under considerable financial strain. Obviously, it is important for us to help them. That is why we decided to temporarily pause the fuel charge on home heating oil for three years. This temporary pause will enable households that heat their homes with oil to save an average of $250 a year at the current rate. Meanwhile, the federal government is working with the provinces to incentivize the switch to heat pumps and gradually eliminate oil heating in the longer term. To support Canadians in rural areas, we are going to double the rural top-up for pollution pricing rebates from 10% to 20% of the baseline amount starting in April 2024. Our government is well aware that people who live in rural communities face unique realities, and this measure will help put even more money back in the pockets of families dealing with higher energy costs because they live outside a large city. However, as I said moments ago, we want to do even more to fight climate change by helping Canadians install more energy-efficient heating systems. An up‐front $250 payment will be available to low- and median-income households that heat their homes with oil and sign up for a federal-provincial program to install a heat pump. We are also working with the provinces and territories to strengthen the oil to heat pump affordability program. The amount of federal funding that eligible homeowners can receive for installing a heat pump will increase from $10,000 to $15,000, adding up to an additional $5,000 in grant funding to match provincial and territorial contributions via co-delivery arrangements. As a result, the cost of an average heat pump and its installation would be covered for low- and median-income households as we continue to minimize upfront costs and make federal programs even easier to access for all households. Obviously, this is a very important measure to help households in the long term. Homeowners who switch from oil to cold-climate heat pumps to heat and cool their homes save an average of up to $2,500 a year on their energy bills. These are substantial savings for Canadian families. In conclusion, since 2015, we have done a great deal to support Canadians in need. Whether it is dealing with global inflation or COVID, our government has always had the backs of Canadians. We will continue to do so, while remaining prudent in how we manage the public purse. That is always done in a fiscally responsible fashion. We are maintaining our AAA credit rating and the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio. We are bringing that down and continuing to lower it so it is alway below 1%. The grocery rebate, the advance payment of the Canada workers benefit and our support for the purchase and installation of heat pumps are excellent examples of measures taken over the past year to help Canadians.

1071 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Dec/7/23 1:01:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a PBO report that shows that Ontario families this year alone will have a net loss of $478 because of the carbon tax. In 2030, once the Liberals' measures are fully implemented, the net loss for Ontario families will be $2,316. I wonder how the member opposite sells that to the people in his riding.

60 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Dec/7/23 1:02:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his question. Our government has brought in many measures to help families and make life more affordable. The Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit and the climate action incentive payments go out to the residents in my riding. There are the two middle-class tax cuts, and we raised the base the personal exemption amount to $15,000. We did the first one in 2015. We will continue to have the backs of Canadian families, whether in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge or the member opposite's riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

107 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Dec/7/23 1:03:00 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, it is clear that the Liberal government has not been making enough investments in first nations, Métis and Inuit. The Auditor General published a report earlier this year about the lack of investments to first nations regarding emergency preparedness. I wonder if the member can respond with stories that validate the lack of investments to first nations, and what the Liberals will do to make sure they are making changes so that first nations, Métis and Inuit are engaged in such things as emergency preparedness, as well as combatting climate change.

96 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Dec/7/23 1:03:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member for Nunavut comes from an area of this country that is greatly affected by climate change. I would also say to the hon. member that members on this side of the aisle and I will always work with the member opposite to improve the lives of the people living in Nunavut, and all indigenous peoples and first nations, to ensure they have the resources to succeed, and to continue the nation-to-nation relationship and collaboration that has taken place since day one in 2015.

91 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.)

Dec/7/23 1:04:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what my colleague might say in response to a recent study by an economist from the University of Calgary that found, if the carbon pricing were to be cancelled today, those who would stand to lose the most would be people with lower incomes and that high-income households stood the most to gain if the tax were axed tomorrow. In fact, the report found that 94% of people who earn $50,000 or less get more through the rebate than they would ever pay in carbon pricing. I wonder what the member might have to say about that.

103 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Dec/7/23 1:05:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the climate action incentive payments, much like other measures we have put in place, whether the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit or any other measure, is meant to make life more affordable for our residents, improve their quality of life, pull people out of poverty and, yes, at the same time, be a win for the environment in reducing emissions. We will continue on the path of making sure we have the backs of Canadians, particularly at this time of global inflation. Thankfully, inflation is dissipating, but the cost of living is still very high. The climate action incentive payments are just another measure to help Canadians and Canadian families, particularly those who are lower-income Canadians.

121 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Dec/7/23 1:06:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was reflecting, as I believe this is the 18th time we are debating a motion similar to this in this Parliament, back to the last election. In our debates, I said it was refreshing that all of the main parties at that time, in 2021, were running on a price on pollution, including all the members of the Conservative Party who sit here right now. We were actually talking about how we fight climate change. Unfortunately, we are back to a time where one of the parties in the House is debating whether we should fight climate change at all. Its members can see it with their own eyes. They represent ridings that have had severe drought, flooding, fires and hurricanes. Their silence is deafening. The only plank of their environmental plan that comes through, as this is the 18th time we are debating this, is recycling slogans. There are no facts behind anything they are coming forward with. They say that the price on pollution does not work. It is false: 30% of our reductions can be attributed to the price on pollution. That is 30% of our reductions; it is working. An hon. member: That's not true. Mr. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, they are heckling me and saying it is not true. They will not stand up at any point and show any facts. They will yell, slam their desks and heckle. The member for Provencher, who is heckling, represents a province that has suffered from the effects of climate with significant drought, and he is laughing. He thinks this is funny. He thinks his province going through severe drought is funny enough to laugh in the House of Commons. He will get up to talk about the price of food, but laugh when there are drought conditions on the Prairies. What is driving that price? Conservatives are going to talk about the price on pollution, but the impact of food increases is happening the same in the United States, which does not have a price on pollution. They cannot explain that. They will not bring forward any facts on that issue. They will not talk about the rebate Canadians get. They will not talk about how eight out of 10 families get more money back. They will not talk about the report out of the University of Calgary that shows 94% of individuals and families who make less than $50,000 a year end up with more. They want to get rid of the price on pollution. What would that do? It would go straight back to their friends the oil companies. It would go straight back to companies I believe last year made $120 billion in profit, and they claim this trickle-down approach would come back to us somehow. What it would mean is more stock buybacks and no spending on climate progress. It would not have any benefit to us Canadians across the board. Canadians who count on their climate action incentive would look to any government that cancels that and ask where the money is. They do not mention the rebate because they do not want to mention they would cut that rebate, which helps so many families across the board. They want to take Canada out of international discussions. According to the World Bank, there are 73 carbon pricing initiatives currently in place or scheduled to be in place across the globe. These include in Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Chile, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Germany and of course Ukraine. We cannot forget about Ukraine, which the members on the other side want to make a splash about. They say that they cannot afford a free trade agreement with Ukraine because it mentions a price on pollution. At the end of the day, they are willing to throw Ukraine under the bus. They are willing to throw it under the bus at a time when its president wants this free trade agreement. They talk about lowering the price of food, but they are voting against a country that is one of the breadbaskets of the world. Ukraine needs Canada's support, and this is what it has asked for. The Conservative Party members are so ideological on pricing pollution, when a huge part of the world is behind this, yet they are going to take Canada back. They are going to take Canada back to the benefit of oil companies. They do not care about defending allies such as Ukraine, and they do not care about being a leader on climate. I know that the member from Manitoba laughs that his province is under a drought, but what about the farmers in his community whose yields are down significantly? This is not because of a government policy, but because of the impacts of climate change. However, we do not hear that in any of their speeches. The Conservatives, who do not want a price on pollution and claim that reducing pollution should be borne by industry, should be getting behind the government's latest announcement, which is an emissions reduction plan that would put a cap-and-trade system in place on the oil and gas sector to reduce 30% of emissions, but we are not going to hear that. We are not going to hear support for that plan because, fundamentally, I do not believe that they believe that climate change is real. It is sad that we are back to a Conservative Party that does not believe in climate change. We have heard speech after speech in the House today, and I am not hearing individuals talk about the impacts in their community. However, they can see it with their own eyes. I remember debating a similar motion to this and the smoke was so bad in Ottawa that we could not see across the river in to Gatineau the impacts of climate change were so real. Again, they are laughing. The hon. member from Saskatoon is making a joke. The forest fires in Quebec were so bad, but he stands here and makes a joke. The Conservatives are climate change deniers. This is a big joke to them. They do not care that grain yields are down on the Prairies. They do not care that forests the size of, I believe, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador burnt down this year, but that is a joke. First the member for Provencher laughed at the fact that there is drought in his province, and the member from Saskatoon laughs at climate change. It is a joke to them. This is an existential crisis facing Canadians. However, Conservatives are now claiming that there is no drought on the Prairies. The grain yields are down across the prairies, I guess, by magic—

1138 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/7/23 1:14:02 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

14 words

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

Dec/7/23 1:14:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a correction. We said there was no drought in Manitoba. There were small areas, but no drought in Manitoba—

24 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/7/23 1:14:15 p.m.
Watch

We are getting into debate. The hon. member can ask a question of the parliamentary secretary as soon as his speech is done. The hon. member for St. Catharines.

29 words

Secretary

Mr. Chris Bittle

Dec/7/23 1:14:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is suggesting that I am not telling the truth, but all we hear is them axing the facts, which is truly unfortunate. The Conservatives are not even going to say that there are drought conditions across the Prairies, which is fact. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, they are chirping. They are upset. They are angry, but the fact remains that this country has seen extreme weather time and time again, and that is what is impacting the price of food. One of the previous members brought up a study warning Canadians that the price of food is going to increase. However, the member did not mention the second part, which was that climate change is the main driver of that. What do they do? They want to get rid of one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce pollution. It is a system that works and puts more money back into the pockets of Canadians. Again, I call on the Conservatives to bring up some facts that support their arguments. Give us a better way to fight pollution. However, they are not going to. The only thing they have are slogans. I would like to see some facts. I would like to see a better way to fight pollution if they have it, but they do not. One Conservative member in committee said that environmentalists bring up all sorts of things, such as acid rain, but it went away. Do members know why it went away? It is because a price on pollution was brought in. An hon. member: Science. Mr. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. laughed again and said “Science”, but a price on pollution was brought in to limit pollution. It was brought in by a Conservative government under Brian Mulroney, by the way, who was a leader on that front. I hope that the Conservatives return back to even 2021, when they were talking about a price on pollution and climate change. Climate change is real. We need to act. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives will laugh and deny it.

358 words

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

Dec/7/23 1:16:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and humour to the member for St. Catharines, because he is certainly a good fabricator. What he needs to do is get his facts straight. Before he surmises that there was a drought in Manitoba, he should do his fact-checking instead of hypothecating about what he would have liked to happen. There was no drought in Manitoba. The farmers in my region were experiencing bumper crops. I do not know what the member was talking about. Why does the member want to increase the price of home heating? Why does he want to increase the price of food for first nations and families right across the country? Why does he want to do that to my residents of Provencher? Why does he want to make life more expensive for Canadian families?

139 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/7/23 1:17:29 p.m.
Watch

I want to caution the hon. members when we are talking about fabrication, making stuff up or using the word that I kicked someone out of the House for yesterday. Let us be careful when we are taking on these things. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

45 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Dec/7/23 1:17:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, grain yields are down. Maybe they are doing great in the hon. member's riding, but he does not cite any facts. He cites his slogans, and that is unfortunate because Manitobans are impacted by the effects of climate change, which is driving up the price of food. That is the main driver of the price of food. No one on the other side mentions that the price of food here is growing at the same price as it is in the United States, which does not have a price on pollution. Climate change is what is driving it. I do not know why the Conservatives are denying it or why they are sticking their heads in the sand. The hon. member ran on a price on pollution. Why is he denying it right now?

137 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Dec/7/23 1:18:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada cited that the carbon tax is causing about a 0.15% impact on inflation. This was confirmed by the PBO. That is 15¢ on a bag of groceries that is $100. The Conservatives are getting away with this runaway train of a disinformation campaign that the carbon tax is the major factor when it comes to grocery store prices. We know it is corporate greed, because the big grocery stores are recording record profits. The reason the Conservatives are able to get away with convincing Canadians to buy into this campaign is that the government has failed to go after the CEOs of the big grocery stores. There is no difference, really, when it comes to Liberals and Conservatives being gatekeepers for the rich and well connected. Will the Liberals finally go after the big grocery store chains and take real, meaningful action so that it shows up at the till when people are trying to buy their groceries?

169 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 264